UK Government Thread

I’ve been for a critical think.

I also did a bit of poogling.

In the context of the total Gov public spending of £1.25 trillion (or 1.25 terapounds for the new fans of SI prefixes) £22bn is a small divot. Less than 2%.

However, Gov spending isn’t on a small number of big activities for example, where 2% is a rounding error, it’s on thousands of ‘small’ (in this context, before you ask) spends. And in that context, £22bn would fund an awful lot, so being £22bn short is a substantial deficit. In that context I therefore think that calling it a ‘black hole’ in the nation’s finances, given the amount that could be done with that £22bn, is not unreasonable.

Essentially I was trying to say that the people that label all politicians as being the same really, really mean what they say.

A section of society simply don’t like or trust politicians, the party is irrelevant as is policy, good or bad .

I must admit with my lack of political prowess im one of those.   I had high hoped the incoming Government with replace the old lot with a much more honest and focused approach to take us forward again, but with the recent headlines I’m starting to fall into “there’re all the same”.     Extra taxes likely incoming, government funds and pensions being raided ( could effect my line of work) and so forth is starting to feel uncomfortable.

I know we have to fix problems caused by the previous lot and I know that costs money I’ve seen it happen elsewhere, by the prospect of being hit directly in to pocket whilst out politicians get free glasses, clothes and extra curricular funding for thier kids feels bad to me.

I’ve been for a critical think.

I also did a bit of poogling.

In the context of the total Gov public spending of £1.25 trillion (or 1.25 terapounds for the new fans of SI prefixes) £22bn is a small divot. Less than 2%.

However, Gov spending isn’t on a small number of big activities for example, where 2% is a rounding error, it’s on thousands of ‘small’ (in this context, before you ask) spends. And in that context, £22bn would fund an awful lot, so being £22bn short is a substantial deficit. In that context I therefore think that calling it a ‘black hole’ in the nation’s finances, given the amount that could be done with that £22bn, is not unreasonable.

Thank you. Is there any reason why you didn’t give that reply yesterday, after I told you £22bn was less than 2%?

I fundamentally disagree with your analysis though: a deficit bigger than assumed doesn’t prevent spending other than through adherence to self imposed, arbitrary rules, which I understand are being looked at. Good.

5 years? It should be obvious by now, and if it isn’t, Starmer has failed!

I think he is failing and is not going to make much difference in 5 years as he simply doesn’t have the will or ambition.
I was referring to everyone else who may or may not notice any difference the government has made before it comes time to vote for them again. If that noticed it got worse would they notice when it got better?

In this current context – given a FOI request hasn’t allowed full disclosure of exactly what has gone off we can’t be totally sure what the black-hole means.  And further to the otherjon’s comment – the OBR haven’t yet fed back on their report due October.

Also I’ve also discovered that some of that 22bn figure hasn’t correctly taken into account inflation based on the OBR deflator. So it’s likely to not be 22bn when accurately calculated.

Departmental budgets for 2024-25 were set at SR21 in cash terms, but inflation has been significantly higher than forecast at the time. At SR21 the OBR forecast that the cumulative increase in prices as measured by the GDP deflator over that three-year period would be around 7%. In reality, cumulative inflation over the first two years was around 13% and is forecast to be 15% over all three years.

Half of the 22bn are pay awards.

At SR21 the government set overall budgets in cash terms on an assumption that pay for public sector workforces would increase by around 3%, 2%, and 2% respectively in the three years covered.

So we’re skirting around again with a headline that means nothing other than creating political noise.

What we do know is Labour came with this black-hole phrase with very little to back it up.

The term black-hole can be relevant if you’re a business with limited capacity to access funds. The government is not – so it’s at best spreadsheet maths where the Tories deliberately under allocated money for the forthcoming year and Labour are looking at what they actually need to do the job – the difference is the black-hole. Yawn.

It’s nothing burger designed to root out Centrist anger on the assumption the government can’t get its hands on more money. It can, does and will.

The main point here as with today’s non-dom circus is the minute you pretend you need to get money form the private sector for paying for things is you create an unnecessarily inaccurate view of how the economy functions.

I mean the non-dom tax take was nowhere near enough to ‘pay-for’ the things Labour were claiming. And now they look like they’re pushing back from that.

It’s easier just to side-step all these silly arguments and point out the UK government has access to all the money it needs. Black-holes and non-doms don’t stop the government paying for things.

The reality is, of course, that ‘black-holes’ are entirely normal and follow the level of government spend. The main issue here is that it’s not accurate language.  It distorts the public view of how the government handles its books.

It’s austerity talk, simplified by treating us as idiots.

with the recent headlines I’m starting to fall into “there’re all the same”

Job done then.

 but with the recent headlines I’m starting to fall into “there’re all the same”.

And that fundamentally is part of the issue isn’t it, that the press are at the heart of it to large extent. Politicians get invited to stuff (football matches, concerts, sports events, parties) all the time, often by organisations like the BBC, Sunday Times, Sky etc etc Then it’s an easy time for a journo to look at the member’s declarations, and clutch at their pearls when it’s revealed that politicians did indeed accept invitations to go to the footy, concerts, sports and  parties… At least, I suppose, it fills those empty columns.

The alternative to this merry go around is to ban all politicians from accepting invites to anything (I suppose then they could legitimately be accused of being out of touch), and have the public fund political parties properly so that they didn’t have to accept funding from donors, I’d object to my taxes going directly to the Tories though,  and put limits on how much you could spend on campaigning.

Would any of those measures lead to ‘better’ democracy or decision making? Hard to tell

The joke about the mystical 22bn black-hole is that 1.4bn from the WFA is going to do anything remotely useful other than take money out of the economy.

(Is black-hole hyphenated?  Maybe a proper one isn’t.)

The ‘mythical’ black hole has known elements, such as the unfunded asylum element that has been dicussed, what makes up the rest is still with the treasury. The £1.4 billion saving from the winter fuel payment is a saving that will have been offered up when departments were asked for savings, it’s not rocket science, governments, and departments have worked like this for a long time.

There’s no point arguing they could just print more money, or change their policy, you’re trying to solve real world problems with theoretical solutions that have not been used in isolation before.

 Then it’s an easy time for a journo to look at the member’s declarations, and clutch at their pearls when it’s revealed that politicians did indeed accept invitations to go to the footy, concerts, sports and  parties

Which of these “gifts” were invites from the organisers of the events to the “offices of state” ?

 Is there any reason why you didn’t give that reply yesterday, after I told you £22bn was less than 2%?

I didn’t realise the phrase black hole was so important, but then you asked, I thought about it, I’ve now replied.

As to the NGDB  – yes, low blow, I apologise. I still don’t quite know how someone who is as involved in this area as you say you are would make that ‘mistake’ but you say it was just a mistake, and I accept.

Can you assure us that anything else you have been saying isn’t similarly inaccurate?

Can you assure us that anything else you have been saying isn’t similarly inaccurate?

And you accuse other people of “derision” ffs.

Everyone makes typos, it has **** all to do with your understanding of a subject.

Still, I guess that hypocrisy has now become a central theme of this thread.

There’s no point arguing they could just print more money, or change their policy, you’re trying to solve real world problems with theoretical solutions that have not been used in isolation before.

I’m sorry you have it back to front.

That is exactly how the government’s functions in financing our state.

The theoretical bit is the ‘black-hole.’ The practical bit the actual mechanism with which government’s do spend day in day out.

(It’s verifiable in this document.)

Peer-reviewed version here pending publication in Journal of Economic Issues…https://t.co/3vgFQXlLZp

— Andrew Berkeley (@spatchcockable) July 28, 2024

The money that government spends every day is not in isolation to anything. It’s a function of many governments with central banks.

No policy needs to be changed. Again you misunderstood or have not read things correctly.

You simply don’t appear to be able to countenance any argument other than say -‘ it’s like this ‘ because Reeves said so.

Why do I know I’m right? Because the Labour government will eventually just issue some money to solve many problems, like they do all the time, every day.

God help people with your understanding if another pandemic comes along. Will you be going on about black-holes then or making stuff up about the function of government spending?

Just defending Starmer and Reeves no matter how bad they perform is not really that useful or honest.

(Also the Fed are currently deficit spending through interest income at a rate of 7% of GDP.  And their economy is growing faster than anyone else’s in the G7 since the pandemic. Interest income is pure money creation by another name. No policy change.)

It is SO hard to have a good faith discussion on this forum these days. The pearl-clutching is intense.

The theoretical bit is the ‘black-hole.’ The practical bit the actual mechanism with which government’s do spend day in day out.

But you know that ‘filling the black hole’ would require the govt to table an amendment in Parliament to pass into law the extra money required for the budget – that was created by the Tories. Why would Labour do that?

You simply don’t appear to be able to countenance any argument

Touche, as the the cool kids say…

And you accuse other people of “derision” ffs.

Yes, and with justification. If you lot stop doing it, then i will.

Everyone makes typos, it has **** all to do with your understanding of a subject.

They do. And i don’t generally pick up on typos unless there’s some humour generated by it (similar to everyone having a gentle laugh at my triple post)

But this doesn’t seem like a typo to me, it seems like a specific choice of letters, and i find that odd given the self-professed experience and knowledge they have. It’s a different abbreviation, more than that it’s not even a recognised one – there is no NGDB that i can find that is relevant to this subject (I can’t find one at all unless you count https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitty_Gritty_Dirt_Band).

It looks to me to be a distinct choice to type those letters, and if introducing an abbreviation or initialisation it’s usual to say what it stands for at least once, if it isn’t obvious.

So in that context, and alongside the differences in how they say things work and my own experiences it made me question the understanding of the subject beyond ‘they made a typo’. Am I not allowed to challenge that? You challenged me to ‘show my credentials’ when making certain claims.

I’m still not clear also then whether your inaccuracies in commentary on the Thames Water / Teddington article were mistakes or deliberate?

Can you assure us that anything else you have been saying isn’t similarly inaccurate?

You may wish to consider your tone.

Yes, and with justification. If you lot stop doing it, then i will.

I see that you can’t help yourself. Your choice, but I can safely consider your complaints to be nothing more than rank hypocrisy.

You may wish to consider your tone.

You may wish to read the last few pages back.

I’m still not clear also then whether your inaccuracies in commentary on the Thames Water / Teddington article were mistakes or deliberate?

You are really quite remarkable, you are still banging on about an article from the Guardian which I linked about a week ago, and which only you seem to want to have an argument about.

I posted a Guardian link with an accompanied comment you disagreed with both the Guardian headline and my comment, suggesting that I might be deliberately lying and demanding that I make some sort of confession. A week later you still won’t let it go. What is wrong with you?

Any updates about the legal action you were considering taking btw?

Job done then.

If you mean Labour politicians betraying the lie that they are any different to the tories and are only really interested in being in power for their own interests, then yes I think you’re probably correct. You don’t mean that though do you?

In other news, remember a few days ago when someone presented Labour’s abolition of non-doms as an example of how the super rich are not untouchable? Well that didn’t last long did it? 🙂

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/27/rachel-reeves-reconsiders-end-to-non-dom-tax-status-over-obr-forecast-fears

You may wish to consider your tone.

I did. I rejected several other versions of what I finally wrote.

I can safely consider your complaints to be nothing more than rank hypocrisy.

You can consider them as you want.

You are really quite remarkable, you are still banging on about an article from the Guardian which I linked about a week ago

Only because of your continued refusal to actually answer the questions raised as a result of your comments. It’s in your hands to put an end to it.

I posted a Guardian link with an accompanied comment you disagreed with both the Guardian headline and my comment, suggesting that I might be deliberately lying and demanding that I make some sort of confession.

If I’m going to consider other’s commentary, I like to know how reliable they are, whether it may contain errors, or indeed may contain deliberate inaccuracies. As a scientist any information must be viewed with an idea of its reliability / uncertainty.

As a scientist any information must be viewed with an idea of its reliability / uncertainty.

Guess that is why you are struggling as this is just some bored people arguing the toss on a cycling forum for something to do.

Only because of your continued refusal to actually answer the questions raised as a result of your comments. It’s in your hands to put an end to it.

You can mention it as much as you want, it really doesn’t bother me. I am just trying to figure out what’s wrong with you. Trying desperately and repeatedly to keep an inconsequential week-old argument alive doesn’t sound like very normal behaviour to me, I don’t know of anyone else who does that.

If I’m going to consider other’s commentary, I like to know how reliable they are, whether it may contain errors, or indeed may contain deliberate inaccuracies.

I have already pointed out on this very thread that nothing I say on here should be treated as being reliable. My advice to you would be to check out every claim that I make in case it turns out to be complete bollocks. HTH

In other news, remember a few days ago when someone presented Labour’s abolition of non-doms as an example of how the super rich are not untouchable? Well that didn’t last long did it? 🙂

The bit that made crack-up in the guardian about this …

Labour’s flagship “non-dom” policy was largely copied and pasted from the Conservatives even though it contains “basic errors” and risks damaging the UK’s financial sector, Whitehall sources have told the Guardian.

Lmfao. They are totally useless.

I’ve been saying for months they take all the worst bits from the Tories.

There’s defo a black-hole but it’s inside Starmer’s head.

One thing after another.

This makes grim reading for Labour

Labour could face defeat at next election without losing single vote

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/national/24601903.labour-face-defeat-next-election-without-losing-single-vote—research/

I am just trying to figure out what’s wrong with you.

Bit rude.

I have already pointed out on this very thread that nothing I say on here should be treated as being reliable. My advice to you would be to check out every claim that I make in case it turns out to be complete bollocks.

I’ll just point out then that after fact checking, what you wrote in response to the Guardian article was complete bollocks. Deliberately bollocks, or mistakenly bollocks, will remain one of life’s mysteries.

You can consider them as you want.

Hey thanks! Opinions have been formed.

what you wrote in response to the Guardian article was complete bollocks.

Thank you for your honesty, I appreciate it.

Especially as being rude probably doesn’t come naturally to you.

Labour could face defeat at next election without losing single vote

The word ‘could’ is doing all the heavy lifting here.

“More in Common director Luke Tryl said: “It may seem extremely premature to be looking ahead to the next election just months after the last one” 

Translation: No Kidding Luke! You had a good revenue stream in the summer that’s all dried up now, so you’ve rolled out some old bollocks dressed up as a “ready to go” column filler that solves some blank space in a willing newspaper, and gives you some free advertising, as honestly you’ve really not got a scooby about what’ll happen between now and the next election. [checks diary] 5 years away

Of course Labour are facing a possible/probable defeat. They got a totally dismal vote share (lowest winning vote share in a century and much lower than many losing vote shares have been) and only won because the right split pretty much down the middle. They are hardly gaining in popularity since. If the right sorts itself out it’s a racing certainty that Labour will lose next time.

I’m sorry you have it back to front.

That is exactly how the government’s functions in financing our state.

The theoretical bit is the ‘black-hole.’ The practical bit the actual mechanism with which government’s do spend day in day out.

I work in a government department, i understand these ‘black holes’, or whatever you want to call them, they are basically unfunded expenditure on the books, we get a budget every year through the spending reviews, we then get the Department Expenditure Limits (DELs) and we go about the job, if the budget isn’t enough, things get delayed, cancelled, etc, so the books are balanced. The issue is if you have to fund those work packages in year, you then have to go back up the chain to request further funding.

I’m not going to discuss the ‘just create more money’ aspect, as that’s not used in our current state, it’s always been looking for savings internally, then other government departments being requested to cut back to then funnel money into it and so on, is it the best way to do it, probably not, as stated before, i do like the idea of MMT, i just don’t see it working in the UK without negative impacts pushed from the markets and other countries, our currency is not that strong.

as honestly you’ve really not got a scooby about what’ll happen between now and the next election. [checks diary] 5 years away

Labour support will either increase or fall, it is possible but very unlikely that it will remain static.

I very much doubt that Labour strategists take such a dismissive attitude towards falling public approval just because the next general election is 5 years away.

Which will of course explain Starmer’s spectacular U-turn over Wardrobegate, despite the fact that we were all reassured it was within the rules and totally justified.

probably not, as stated before, i do like the idea of MMT, i just don’t see it working in the UK without negative impacts pushed from the markets and other countries, our currency is not that strong.

Argee. We already do MMT.

MMT is the description of the way government spending currently works in a fiat system. The information for it is literally pulled from Central Bank info.

Just because the Politicians like to mess around with the idea of what we can or can’t spend in your department doesn’t make it that more money can’t be made available.

There was no budget for covid. Until they needed the money.

I’m sorry but macro evidence stands above what happens in your department.

America doesn’t have an issue with its currency and it’s spent a fortune all thanks to a massive stimulus bill from Biden’s lot.

It’s out of date thinking to believe spending adversely affects the currency value automatically – which ultimately is of little concern if the government fixes a whole load of problems with the cash on domestic shores.

Let’s see where Labour go. I’m saying no significant economic growth without substantial money creation for spending on new investment. (money creation happens every day when for example the first tranches of pension payments leave the BoE before any taxation clears the end of day sweep. Spending before taxation.)

Well here’s a bit of good news for Labour……it looks like Keir Starmer’s meeting with Donald Trump was quite a success and very worthwhile.

Trump seems to have really liked Starmer :

Trump heaps praise on ‘very popular’ Keir Starmer as pair meet in New York

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-donald-trump-meeting-new-york-b2619851.html

I’ve had enough of silly buggers for a while, it’s exhausting trying to keep up for one thing.

Labour support will either increase or fall, it is possible but very unlikely that it will remain static.

I very much doubt that Labour strategists take such a dismissive attitude towards falling public approval just because the next general election is 5 years away.

Which will of course explain Starmer’s spectacular U-turn over Wardrobegate, despite the fact that we were all reassured it was within the rules and totally justified.

I follow a number of ‘alternative view’ channels on twitter, and a couple of them – in fairness probably all the same source in the end – are saying that there’s another big scandal to break, and that Starmer could be gone as soon as mid of next week. Another one with Lord Alli, apparently. Anyone else seen anything similar?

Crikey, haven’t been on here in a while…..I think it was “kind” of okay in the early thread, but it’s about 6 of you in an echo chamber. Why don’t you do a version of the guardian’s dining across the divide and sort it out once and for all in real life. Or do something uplifting like putting the thread down and riding your bikes ( I know I know) .

Get a life or a room you lot.

and riding your bikes

Bloody extremists aren’t welcome in here!

😉

Excuse my ignorance but wasn’t all the money created and sprayed around during covid responsible for the big subsequent spike in inflation which decimated living standards across the country?

Doesn’t sound like something we want more of to me.

Excuse my ignorance but wasn’t all the money created and sprayed around during covid responsible for the big subsequent spike in inflation which decimated living standards across the country?

No that was mainly corporate greed taking advantage of covid and the energy crisis to rape the economy.

https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/06/26/europes-inflation-outlook-depends-on-how-corporate-profits-absorb-wage-gains.

And it should be said I saw very few politicians suggesting that corporate greed should be suppressed to combat inflation, like they have  obsessively claimed about normal peoples wages for pretty much the whole of my working life…

susepic

echo chamber

Now after making my glib comment a few minutes ago I’ll make a slightly more serious post.

The echo chamber isn’t the problem with the political threads in my opinion. By definition in an echo chamber everyone agrees with each other, beliefs and “facts” are amplified not challenged and the shared consensus actually brings harmony. Fair to say that description doesn’t fit the politics threads well.

But…

We are all too aware that they (echo chambers) lead to entrenched views and even extremism as viewpoints and “facts” go unchallenged.

I’ve even laid in bed some nights (insomnia) and pondered about what effect having separated political threads for those on the left, centre and right would have? Views would go unchallenged, true but I don’t think anyone on here is going to reach for an AK and head towards parliament anytime soon.

Would having political apartheid detoxify the threads though, possibly but would it be workable? Probably not.

Why? We cant even agree who is on the left, centre or right of politics. If someone wishes to “self identify” they very likely will get told that they aren’t on the political part of the spectrum they themselves think they are and then it goes round and round again.

So… the reality is, if the thread starts effecting your mood in real life, in even the slightest of negative ways, it’s time to go cold turkey. For some that only needs to be for a few hours, for some, days or weeks and for others, permanently. Which is a shame in my view.

The political threads on here have actually helped form some of my political opinions over the years. I’ll happy adopt a view point from Ernie or binners or any other poster really. If it fleshes out a political instinct I already have, that’s great or it might even replace an opposing one I  had. That’s a harder pill to swallow as Im only human like everyone else. There are other times when I will remain ideologically and politically  fixed to a view even if, deep down, I know my reasoning is flawed. In that last instance, *if* I recognise I’m doing that, I’ll at least try not to defend it on here even if I just can’t bring myself to discard it in my head. If nothing else it stops me getting torn apart on here and sometimes, well, to cope with other stuff in my head, that’s enough.

Anyway…

Even if separated echo chambers could actually lead to less acrimonious discussion it’s unlikely to work in the context of the forum and at a macro level for society in general, they just aren’t healthy long term.